T
TLC
Flightless Bird
Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
-
Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.
K
Ken Blake
Flightless Bird
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:58:28 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
> Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
that is not correct.
> Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
that is not correct.
M
MJMIII
Flightless Bird
I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
--
"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
"Ken Blake" <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote in message
news:frg796lc2uf287iak7cccccj786m25gqa4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:58:28 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
>
>
>
> I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
> that is not correct.
>
--
"Don't pick a fight with an old man.
If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
"Ken Blake" <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote in message
news:frg796lc2uf287iak7cccccj786m25gqa4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:58:28 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Can the maximum number of fonts be increased from 500? If so; how?
>
>
>
> I don't where you got the idea that there is a 500-font limit, but
> that is not correct.
>
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
Thanks for the replies.
On 9/17/2010 4:16 PM, MJMIII wrote:
> I agree. I have 8217 fonts.
>
C
Char Jackson
Flightless Bird
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>
>Thanks for the replies.
You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
here, period.
>You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>
>Thanks for the replies.
You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
here, period.
C
chrisv
Flightless Bird
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:9nm996ligpplag8nmvb4ihcees9595geh7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>>You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>>Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>>
>>Thanks for the replies.
>
> You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
> third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
> here, period.
>
news:9nm996ligpplag8nmvb4ihcees9595geh7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>>You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>>Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>>
>>Thanks for the replies.
>
> You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
> third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
> here, period.
>
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.
On 9/18/2010 11
2 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>> Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>>
>> Thanks for the replies.
>
> You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
> third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
> here, period.
>
post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.
On 9/18/2010 11
2 AM, Char Jackson wrote:> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:15 -0400, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> You are both correct. I have 619 fonts. I found that it is Microsoft
>> Works that has the restriction, i.e., the attachment
>>
>> Thanks for the replies.
>
> You can stop posting that same attachment now. This is at least the
> third time we've seen it. In fact, please stop posting attachments
> here, period.
>
S
Seth
Flightless Bird
"TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
news:G4SdnRItX8efKwXRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
> post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
> correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
> reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
> of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
> fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.
Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
Usenet which is unmoderated.
However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group and
as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
news:G4SdnRItX8efKwXRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
> post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
> correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
> reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw any
> of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not being
> fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than rude.
Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
Usenet which is unmoderated.
However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group and
as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
believe they were being moderated.
On 9/21/2010 10:57 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> "TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
> news:G4SdnRItX8efKwXRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
>> post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
>> correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
>> reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw
>> any of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not
>> being fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than
>> rude.
>
> Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
> Usenet which is unmoderated.
>
> However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group
> and as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
>
>
>
I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
believe they were being moderated.
On 9/21/2010 10:57 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> "TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
> news:G4SdnRItX8efKwXRnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Are you the moderator? Did you intercept my replies and then refuse to
>> post them due to the attachment? If yes to these questions then the
>> correct response should have been to inform me upon receipt of the 1st
>> reply that attachments should not be included in posts. I never saw
>> any of my replies and thought that, for some reason, my reply was not
>> being fully received thus the 3 replies. Polite is always better than
>> rude.
>
> Not sure where or how you are posting, but I'm viewing your message via
> Usenet which is unmoderated.
>
> However I never saw your original messages as this is a non-binary group
> and as such many server don't propagate messages that contain attachments.
>
>
>
C
Char Jackson
Flightless Bird
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>believe they were being moderated.
My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
Giganews, apparently did not.
>The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>believe they were being moderated.
My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
Giganews, apparently did not.
S
Seth
Flightless Bird
"TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
news:y_mdnc4_OZwDpwTRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question. I
> am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I did
> not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me believe they
> were being moderated.
Not moderated, but dropped.
Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have not
seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on Usenet)
and drops without passing on.
There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text only
message group.
news:y_mdnc4_OZwDpwTRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question. I
> am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I did
> not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me believe they
> were being moderated.
Not moderated, but dropped.
Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have not
seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on Usenet)
and drops without passing on.
There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text only
message group.
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
Apology accepted.
On 9/21/2010 8:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>> believe they were being moderated.
>
> My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
> In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
> your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
> provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
> Giganews, apparently did not.
>
On 9/21/2010 8:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:07:06 -0400, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>> believe they were being moderated.
>
> My apologies. As Seth said, this is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup.
> In effect, you moderated yourself (in some people's eyes, including
> your own) by posting a binary attachment to a non-binary newsgroup. My
> provider, Easynews, allowed the posts through, but your provider,
> Giganews, apparently did not.
>
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either by a
human being or robo software.
On 9/22/2010 10:11 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> "TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
> news:y_mdnc4_OZwDpwTRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>> believe they were being moderated.
>
> Not moderated, but dropped.
>
> Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have
> not seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on
> Usenet) and drops without passing on.
>
> There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
> dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text
> only message group.
>
>
human being or robo software.
On 9/22/2010 10:11 AM, Seth wrote:
>
> "TLC" <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in message
> news:y_mdnc4_OZwDpwTRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> The original post had no attachments. Only the 3 replies in question.
>> I am using the server news.west.earthlink.net. My software is Mozilla
>> Thunderbird v3.1.4. I saw my original post and my previous reply. I
>> did not see my 3 replies containing the attachment which makes me
>> believe they were being moderated.
>
> Not moderated, but dropped.
>
> Ok, not the "original" message, but any replies with attachments I have
> not seen as my server ignores (not moderates, there are no moderators on
> Usenet) and drops without passing on.
>
> There is a difference between being moderated and having a message
> dropped/ignored because it violated the no-attachment setting of a text
> only message group.
>
>
N
Nil
Flightless Bird
On 22 Sep 2010, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:
> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
> by a human being or robo software.
No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
newsgod.
alt.windows7.general:
> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
> by a human being or robo software.
No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
newsgod.
T
TLC
Flightless Bird
Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
server appears to be the moderator.
On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>> by a human being or robo software.
>
> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
> newsgod.
definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
server appears to be the moderator.
On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>> by a human being or robo software.
>
> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
> newsgod.
G
Gene E. Bloch
Flightless Bird
In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.
In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
defined as "seriousness"?
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:194 -0400, TLC wrote:
> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
> definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
> less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
> server appears to be the moderator.
>
> On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
>> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
>> alt.windows7.general:
>>
>>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>>> by a human being or robo software.
>>
>> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
>> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
>> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
>> newsgod.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
defined as "seriousness"?
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19
4 -0400, TLC wrote:> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
> definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
> less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
> server appears to be the moderator.
>
> On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
>> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
>> alt.windows7.general:
>>
>>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>>> by a human being or robo software.
>>
>> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
>> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
>> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
>> newsgod.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
G
Gene E. Bloch
Flightless Bird
Typo. I meant "moderator", of course.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 156:27 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.
>
> In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
> defined as "seriousness"?
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:194 -0400, TLC wrote:
>
>> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
>> definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
>> less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
>> server appears to be the moderator.
>>
>> On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
>>> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
>>> alt.windows7.general:
>>>
>>>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>>>> by a human being or robo software.
>>>
>>> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
>>> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
>>> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
>>> newsgod.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15
6:27 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:> In the local context (newsgroups), "moderato" is a technical term.
>
> In a classical mechanics class, would you insist that "gravity" is
> defined as "seriousness"?
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19
4 -0400, TLC wrote:>
>> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but the
>> definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the excessiveness of; make
>> less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous". In this case, the news
>> server appears to be the moderator.
>>
>> On 9/22/2010 10:41 AM, Nil wrote:
>>> On 22 Sep 2010, TLC<TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
>>> alt.windows7.general:
>>>
>>>> Semantics. In order to be dropped it had to be moderated. Either
>>>> by a human being or robo software.
>>>
>>> No, not semantics. To be "moderated" implies that there is a group
>>> moderator. There is no such being, human or electronic. Attachments are
>>> dropped by any news server that is set up to do so, not by one central
>>> newsgod.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
N
Nil
Flightless Bird
On 22 Sep 2010, TLC <TcNoSpam@sunlink.net> wrote in
alt.windows7.general:
> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but
> the definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the
> excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or
> rigorous". In this case, the news server appears to be the
> moderator.
That is not what "moderator" means in newsgroup/discussion forum
jargon. You are misusing the term.
alt.windows7.general:
> Again, semantics. You infer that there is a group moderator, but
> the definition of the verb moderate is "to reduce the
> excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or
> rigorous". In this case, the news server appears to be the
> moderator.
That is not what "moderator" means in newsgroup/discussion forum
jargon. You are misusing the term.